Many protesters in the Occupy Wall Street movement have roundly denounced any and all forms of capitalism as the source of all our present ills. That’s one of the reasons they chose Wall Street as the place to make their angst known.

But while they march and chant and propose lists of endless demands I can’t help but wonder, are those who are so outraged clear on who their enemy really is?

Its the wedding of a select few corporations to the government combined with a lack of accountability that is the problem. The father of capitalism, Adam Smith, was opposed to the notion of joint-stock companies which enjoy limited liability, enforced by the state (ie. the East India Company) for many of the reasons the Occupy Wall Street protesters are now upset. He didn’t believe corporations should be considered legal entities in themselves (from which we get the modern view that corporations are persons). And he was opposed to the separation of ownership and management which he rightly predicted would end up harming both the owners and managers.

So who was for this joint-stock system which has blossomed into what we have today?

Many of the Occupy Wall Street movement are openly sympathetic to socialistic notions. What those protesters likely fail to understand is that the same movement which supported socialistic economic policies also supported joint-stock companies because they believed that by allowing the common man to own stock he would have a better chance to become wealthy but in order to encourage the common man to take such a risk his liability needed to be limited. And Smith, among others, accurately predicted the problems that limited liability would produce. Its really not fair to place all the blame on CEOs for accepting golden parachutes when the real problem is that such a disconnected ownership structure provides the perfect environment in which to draft such contracts.

So if the protestors want to be consistent they need to read their history to understand that 1. capitalism is not their enemy nor the cause of the corruption they are rightly upset over and that 2. the fault does not lie solely with corporations in general (not all companies that are listed on the NASDAQ or the Dow Jones Industrial Index are evil) or even corrupt corporations but with the toxic mix of a select few corporations which enjoy government favor and protection.

What essentially needs to happen is for the Tea Party to mix their hatred of the government with the Occupy Wall Street’s hatred of corrupt businesses. I’m pretty sure the two would be pleasantly surprised at the result.

In an effort to change the coffee industry – one of the most exploitative in the world – Land of a Thousand Hills participates in Community Trade, a term we coined to mean Directly Traded, paid for with higher-than-Fair Trade wages, and where investment in the farming community is our top priority. We believe that by paying our coffee growers just, Living Wages and supporting economic and community development in the region, not only does the region thrive with higher quality coffee, justice is pursued. Our special projects include building a sustenance farm for the region’s malnourished orphans, creating soccer programs to promote community and coffee education, giving microfinance loans to entrepreneurs, lending coffee bikes to ensure safer and more efficient travel, and donating shoes to farmers and their families.

What if your coffee could transform a village? It can. Embrace the power of the bean. Drink Coffee. Do Good.

This all sounds great. Who could possibly have a problem with this arrangement?

Jay Richards has an excellent section in his book, Money, Greed, and God, about the total effects of fair trade and how, by ignoring basic market principles, it ends up doing more harm than good.

The main tenant of fair trade, or “Community Trade” as Thousand Hills likes to call it1, is that goods are purchased at a “fair” price supposedly capable of producing “living wages”. The net effect is that fair trade certified coffee costs more than its free market alternatives.

Here are a few problems inherent with this arrangement:

Fair trade trades in the same markets of empathy that charities do.

It does not have the power to lift whole nations out of poverty like free trade has because it ignores basic market principles.

It preys on the desire to feel good (as opposed to actually doing good) that many people (mostly liberals) have.

It encourages people to stay in agriculture when they could move to other industries which could produce more wealth for more people.

It fosters a moral hazard where lower quality goods can be foisted onto artificially captive markets (ie. moral-minded churches) while higher quality goods are sold on the free market. I’ve been the unlucky recipient of this sort of deal where a local church provides fair trade coffee which costs as much as Starbucks but tastes like burnt rubber. This is wholly unfair to the consumer.

Fair trade is based on a Marxist economic understanding where equality of outcomes is held to be the standard of “justice”. For this reason you’ll hear a lot of talk of “social justice” in pro-fair-trade material.

Critics of free markets maintain that the coffee crisis highlights the failures of globalization. In fact, however, it is their response to the coffee crisis that showcases the failures of the anti-globalization movement. That movement proclaims its sympathy for the world’s poor, but its economic illiteracy leads again and again to
the advocacy of measures that would actually exacerbate global poverty. With specific regard to coffee, those who single out particular companies as scapegoats and advocate various halfbaked schemes to prop up prices may have the best of intentions, but they are not really helping. At best they are diverting time and energy into dead ends; at worst they could end up making the situation even worse. It may feel good to ignore market realities, but it won’t do any good.

Here’s a short talk given to the European Coffee Symposium in Vienna by Dr Peter Griffiths. The gist is that “Fairtrade does very little for farmers in the Third World. It kills some. But it is very good for Western Business”.

Here is an excellent debate held by the Cambridge Union on the topic “This House Believes that Fairtrade is Unfair”. Here’s part 1 of 12:

In his book, Jay explores the question of why Christians should care about economics and why he believes capitalism is the best economic system we’ve come up with so far.

In his opening Jay makes the point that while many people talk about fighting poverty, few people employ their minds in coming up with permanent solutions. Instead, Jay argues, we are all too often content to dole out handouts to those in need. While that may be necessary in emergency situations, it is not a sustainable long term solution.

In his book Jay argues that capitalism is the best means of lifting entire nations out of grinding poverty. If we are serious about helping the poor, we should encourage the spread of free market principles so that others can enjoy the rich blessings capitalism is known to provide.

Jay’s book is centered around addressing eight myths about capitalism. These myths include:

Can’t we build a just society?

What would Jesus do?

Doesn’t capitalism foster unfair competition?

If I become rich, won’t someone else become poor?

Isn’t capitalism based on greed?

Hasn’t Christianity always opposed capitalism?

Doesn’t capitalism lead to an ugly consumerist culture?

Are we going to use up all the resources?

In the last question Jay makes the case that capitalism is the best economic system for protecting the environment.

Overall I’ve found Jay’s book to be one of the most helpful resources in explaining to both Christians and non-Christians why capitalism is the solution and not the problem.